Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Accident Research Unit, School of Psychology, University of Nottingham <br />Attraction and distraction of attention with roadside advertisements (Crundall et <br />al.,2005)7 <br /> <br />This research used eye movement tracking to measure the difference between street-level <br />advertisements and raised advertisements in terms of how they held drivers' attention at <br />times when attention should have been devoted to driving tasks. The study found that <br />street-level advertising signs are more distracting than raised signs. <br /> <br />3.3 "Dynamic" Billboards: an Additional Source of Distraction? <br /> <br />Signage owners or leasers want to incorporate dynamic features into their signage for a number <br />ofreasons: to enhance the sign's ability to attract attention, to facilitate display of larger amounts <br />of information within the same sign area, to conveniently change message content, and to <br />enhance profitability. As mentioned earlier, this report uses the term "dynamic" signs to refer to <br />non-static signs capable of displaying multiple messages. Several studies documented the ability <br />of a sign to accomplish the first of these goals, <br /> <br />University of Toronto <br />Observed Driver Glance Behavior at Roadside Advertising Signs (Beijer & Smiley, <br />2004) · <br /> <br />Research done at the University of Toronto compared driver behavior subject to passive <br />(static) and active (dynamic) signs. The study found that about twice as many glances <br />were made toward the active signs than passive signs. A disproportionately larger <br />number of long glances (greater than 0.75 seconds) taken were toward the active signs. <br />The duration of 0.75 seconds is important because it is close to the minimum perception- <br />reaction time required for a driver to react to a slowing vehicle. For vehicles with close <br />following distances, or under unusually complex driving conditions, a perception delay of <br />this length could increase the chance of a crash. The following findings were reported in <br />this study: <br /> <br />. 88% of the subjects made long glances (greater than 0,75 seconds), <br /> <br />. 22% of all glances made at all signs were long glances (greater than 0.75 seconds), <br /> <br />. 20% of all the subjects made long glances of over two seconds. <br /> <br />. As compared to static and scrolling text signs, video and tri-vision signs attracted <br />more long glances, <br />. Video and scrolling text signs received the longest average maximum glance <br />duration, <br />. All three of the moving sign types (video, scrolling text and tri-vision) attracted more <br />than twice as many glances as static signs. <br /> <br />;"9 <br />